The Faith Eclipsed: Beware of LibTrad Robert Robbins

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 25, 2025 | New Blog

+Conversion of St. Paul+

A few years ago I posted an article explaining how those out to discredit the work posted to this site operate. Please read it again HERE. For it seems that the efforts of those working to lead others astray has continued and even escalated over the past several months and a review of this article will explain how and why this is happening. Below you will find the response to a comment posted to our Dec. 31 blog by one Rihard, listing as “errors,” excerpts from previous blogs and articles taken completely out of context. Rihard bases his objections on LibTrad Robert Robbins’ comments on blogs and other articles posted to my site in the summer of 2022. At that time, Robbins, presenting as a pray-at-home Catholic, appeared to support this site for several months, but eventually began to attack what was written here when the invalidity of LibTrad pseudo-clergy was first proposed.

One longtime reader, who has asked to remain anonymous, offers this summary of Robbins’ character: “Robbins sure has the ability of using words which to me just confuse. His personal attacks are quite vile. He states in “answering an obvious objection” that he wants to be a leader of The Home Alone Catholics.  He says he can offer instruction for the ignorant. HE claims he has the ability and aptitude to be a “kind of” catechist. He touts his “cum laude” 150 credits, he touts he had near enough credits to earn a minor in theology. Yet, he does not question the professors (Modernists) who taught him his treasured theology. He says he was with seminarians in university,  learning philosophy. So I ask myself, is the unapproved (by a true pope) theology his foundation is based on one to be proud of?”

Rihard’s objections are answered below. The links he provides to Robbins’ “refutations” will not be given here because they are hateful and filled with error themselves.

1) Lack of proof that immediate jurisdiction [from Christ, directly to bishops] is a Protestant heresy

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Immediate+jurisdiction

“[Jurisdiction is] the right to guide and rule the Church of God… Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but mediate… It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate…Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.”, confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matt., xviii, 18). https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope

“We say mission is given mediately when we are sent by one who has from God the power of sending according to the order which he has appointed in his Church. Immediate mission is when God himself commands and gives a charge without the interposition of the ordinary authority which he has placed in the prelates and pastors of the church such as Saint Peter and the apostles were sent receiving, from our Lord’s own mouth this commandment” (St. Francis de Sales condemning the Calvinists in his The Catholic Controversy, Ch. 2-3). Robbins, like his LibTrad fellows, tries to pretend that mission and jurisdiction are not the same. And yet this definition tallies exactly with the one from the Catholic Encyclopedia above.

The Latin root of mission is mittere, to send. In his A Commentary on Canon Law, Rev. Charles Augustine comments on Can. 109 as follows: “The missio canonica is necessary for all who are inferior to the Pope. For as the Lord sent His Apostles, so in turn He sent others to exercise their spiritual power with authority, and without such credentials no one has authority in the Church.” The Latin root of jurisdiction means the power, right, or authority (to act) as determined by the law (canonica). This is why jurisdiction is either connected to an office or is delegated by one possessing an office.

In 1786, Pope Pius VI wrote Super Soliditate, condemning Febronianism, Regalism and Josephism: “All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man [Eybel] who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which had been condemned by so many decrees; who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many ambiguities that every Bishop no less than the Pope was called by God to govern the Church and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the same power Himself to all the apostles and that whatever some people believe is obtained and granted only by the pope, that very thing, WHETHER IT DEPENDS ON CONSECRATION OR ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION, can be obtained just as well from any bishop …” (DZ 1500).

The Vatican Council teaches: “If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honor only: let him be anathema.” Clearly this is not said about the bishops, but only the Roman Pontiff.

• Protestant bishops do not believe that that the Pope is the head of the Church, possessing immediate jurisdiction.
• They believe instead that their power to operate as pastors comes to them from Christ to the Apostles, whose descendants they are, and that Peter was simply one of the Apostles, not the head of the Church.
• Therefore they believe, as do Traditionalists, that they possess immediate jurisdiction — that their power to rule comes directly from Christ.

Read Msgr. Fenton on this here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/episcopal-jurisdiction-fenton (but ignore the preface notes about Francis). It is certain from all the above that the idea of immediate mission proceeding directly from Christ was a heresy embraced by Protestants, the Gallicanists, the Josephists, the Regalists and the Febronians. To deny this is to accuse Pope Pius VI, the Vatican Council and Pope Pius XII of promulgating error. These errors are all mentioned in connection with immediate jurisdiction in the Catholic Encyclopedia article linked above.

2)  Contention that: “Ott is not a trustworthy source of theology and should not be used, certainly, in defending truths of faith.”

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/ludwig-ott-warning-and-jurisdiction-errors-refuted/

Argue with a professor of theology writing before Pope Pius XII died, not with me Rihard. The book review quoted in the link above on Dr. Ott’s work was written by Rev. John J. King, O.M.I., who 1955 became a professor of theology at the Oblate College (Scholasticate) in Washington, D.C. All understand that already, Modernism had made many inroads into the Church by way of such theologians as Ott, who were labeled as doctrinal minimalists by Msgr. Fenton. The review was quite lengthy and went into great detail about other errors in Ott’s work, as well. But these errors were not relevant to the real question at hand: That Ott labels as sententia probabilis the teaching that bishops receive their jurisdiction immediately from the Roman Pontiff, not from Christ Himself, when, as Msgr. Fenton proves, this teaching is sententiae certa — declared by Pope Pius XII to be certain. Pious beliefs and tolerated opinions fall under the sententia probabilis note and have the lowest degree of certainty.

In launching his rabid tangent on my theological incompetence and “errors” regarding Ott in 2022, Robbins was attempting to divert attention from the fact that he was the one who endorsed the teaching of a theologian, already warned against by a theology professor; a theologian who did not accept the certain teaching of the Roman Pontiff. My edition of Ott is a second edition, written in 1959, long after Humani generis taught that infallible statements could be contained in the encyclicals and Ottaviani’s statement on sententiae certa. In this 1959 edition, Ott STILL lists Pius XII’s teaching as sententia probabilis. He heretically states: “Only Popes and bishops possess ecclesiastical jurisdictional power by Divine right,”  when Pius XII says of bishops in Mystici corporis: “Bishops…are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

In the forward to this second 1959 Ott edition, Canon James Bastible writes: “The second English edition embodies the many changes made in the second and third German editions… Every effort has been made to eliminate inaccuracies but doubtless some slips have been overlooked in this book with its quarter million words. I shall be very grateful for any help by readers and correcting these in future edition.” Innaccuracies, when Ott is teaching the faithful and seminarians heresy? Because according to Msgr. Fenton, he most certainly was. Msgr. Fenton notes in his “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Pt. II” (Sept. 1949, AER):

“[Ottaviani] tells us [that] up until the present time this thesis had been considered as more probable and even as sententia communis [common opinion of theologians] but that from now on it is to be held as entirely certain by reason of the words of the present Holy Father… 

Monsignor Ottaviani [pro-secretary of the Holy Office under Pius XII-Ed.] assumes rightly that the authoritative statement of this thesis in the papal letter raises this teaching from the status of a more probable doctrine to that of a perfectly certain proposition. This observation on the part of Monsignor Ottaviani constitutes a valuable, practical corrective to a certain tendency towards oversimplification and MINIMALISM which had begun to invade some recent judgments on the doctrinal authority of the… encyclical letters.

“Thus it would seem that some teachings whose main claim to acceptance on the part of Catholics is to be found in the fact that they are stated in papal encyclicals would actually demand an assent higher than that which must be accorded to the content of the Church’s authentic but non-infallible magisterium. Such truths would demand the kind of assent usually designated in theology under the title of FIDES ECCLESIASTICA…” (Doctrinal Authority in the Encyclicals, Pt. II, AER, 1949. Please see also the link to Msgr. Fenton’s article above on episcopal jurisdiction).

“If that supreme power is exercised within the field of dogma itself, that is, by declaring that some particular truth has been revealed by God and is to be accepted by all men as a part of revelation,” Fenton continues, “then the assent called for by the definition is that of divine faith itself. If on the other hand, the Holy Father, using his supreme apostolic authority, does not propose his teaching as a dogma, but merely as completely certain, then the faithful are bound to accept his teaching as absolutely certain. They are, in either case, obliged in conscience to give an unconditional and absolutely irrevocable assent to any proposition defined in this way” (“Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” (AER, March 1953). Humani Generis closes all discussion on such issues. We refer you to the chart below, (On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J., Rome, 1951 — a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations):

Is it just a coincidence that Ott is the “go to” source for Traditionalists, especially the Society of St. Pius X? This when there are so many other good sources (Tanquerey, Berry, Van Noort, Herve) to consult. So if those believing Robbins wish to content themselves with defending the teaching of someone who promotes heresy — and continues to teach as well that Traditional bishops are valid — that is their problem. But don’t accuse me of error in protecting my readers from people who brazenly show their contempt for the faith.

3) Contention that marriages before non-Catholic ministers are not sacramental

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/fools-professing-to-be-wise-and-attempted-marriage-clarified/

I am not going to repeat myself on this. It is Canon Law, plain and simple, a negatively infallible legal decision. You either accept what the Church teaches or you don’t. What is it about this clearly stated canon you don’t understand, or wish to obey? “Those marriages only are valid which are contracted either before a pastor or the local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either and at least two witnesses…” (unless Can. 1098 is invoked). Show me how and where the Church teaches otherwise, from Her own documents, as the scholastic method and Canon Law demands. The remedy for an invalid LibTrad marriage is simple: cite Can. 1098 and renew the marriage vows. It appears to me you prefer not to accept the clear words of the Popes OR Canon Law. Readers need only re-read the proofs provided in the link above. The regurgitation of all these objections is really about the fact that Robbins refuses to accept Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and Canon Law, which proves all LibTrad pseudo-clergy are invalid, meaning all their attempted acts were invalid as well.

4) The view that Catechism is not enough for defense of truths of Faith for lay people

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/why-the-catechism-alone-will-definitely-not-save-your-soul-2/

Why did Pope St. Pius X teach in Acerbo nimis: “The task of the catechist is to take up one or other of the truths of faith or of Christian morality and then explain it in all its parts; and since amendment of life is the chief aim of his instruction, the catechist must needs make a comparison between what God commands us to do and what is our actual conduct. After this, he will use examples appropriately taken from the Holy Scriptures, Church history, and the lives of the saints – thus moving his hearers and clearly pointing out to them how they are to regulate their own conduct. He should, in conclusion, earnestly exhort all present to dread and avoid vice and to practice virtue… If faith languishes in our days, if among large numbers it has almost vanished, the reason is that the duty of catechetical teaching is either fulfilled very superficially or altogether neglected… The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent,” (End of quote. And that of Trent is no ordinary catechism, but one which is detailed and would take a good deal of time to course through, if all topics would be covered). Clearly Robbins is not qualified as a catechist.

The grade school and even adult catechisms available today scarcely explain the text the way the catechist is required to explain and amplify it, and are no substitute for personal catechetical instruction, especially of adults. The Baltimore and Penny Catechisms may convey the basics, but many editions are incomplete because they have not incorporated the later teachings of the Roman Pontiffs reigning in the 20^th century. Acerbo nimis was written in 1905, so how would the faithful have even known about the dangers of Modernism if relying on Rev. Thomas Kinkead’s catechism (the most reliable), written in the 1800s, or the Council of Trent catechism, from the 16^th century?!  If catechism was enough, why were Catholics urged to join Catholic Action groups to receive special training in promoting the faith? Why was the Catholic Evidence Guild established? Is continuing education required in many academic fields? Then why not our holy Catholic religion, which far exceeds any secular institution?!

In the 1957 work, A Call to the Laity, Abp. Richard Cushing writes: “The hour has come for us to cease to expect a child’s study of a child’s catechism to give adults an appreciation of an essentially intellectual religion. The effort to attain the intellectual vision, the clear thinking and the moral integrity for which the Holy Father calls can be based only on a systematic study by the laity of the principles of justice and charity as they apply to modern problems of life and thought “(pg. 28). In other words, you don’t take a knife to a gunfight, and this is a battle of major proportions, not High Noon. Robbins should stop pandering to his own opinions and instead follow the hierarchy and the popes.

Rihard writes: “I add some of my personal observations, based on those previous points:

I looked at what Teresa Benns quoted ( https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/6-traditionalists/why-traditionalist-clerics-never-received-valid-orders/)  Canon 118 in the book of Canon Law: “Clerics only can obtain either the power of orders or that of ecclesiastical jurisdiction” (Can. 118). None of us are canon lawyers. However, this canon is included in the section “The Rights and Privileges of Clerics.” This means that the legislator in this canon most likely wanted to emphasize that only clerics can rightly (licitly) receive the power of orders. In my opinion, what is not meant by this canon is that those who are not clerics (clergy) cannot validly, albeit illegally, receive Orders.”

T. Benns: Your personal observation is wrong because you do not consider here Can. 108 or Can. 111. Under the heading “Laws Concerning the Clergy,” we read (Woywod-Smith commentary): “Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics” (Can. 108). Only clerics can proceed to the other orders. This two-part requirement distinguishes a cleric from a layperson. Who regularly assigns men to the divine ministry? Valid and licit bishops. “Every cleric must belong either to some diocese or to some religious organization and no recognition may be extended to vagrant clerics. By reception of first tonsure a cleric is ascribed to…the diocese for the service of which he was promoted,” (Can. 111; also the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Ch. 16). “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” (Can. 118). Tonsure or some valid order is, by ecclesiastical law, a prerequisite for the VALIDITYof any office” (“Canon Law: A Text and Commentary,” Revs. T. Lincoln-Bouscaren and Adam Ellis, (Can. I09, 118).

Again, I refuse to repeat myself here. I may not be a lay canon lawyer (although there were such lawyers in the Church pre-1959) but I can read and understand what the popes, Canon Law and approved authors clearly teach. The links HERE and HERE prove these men could never have become clerics.

5) Calling potentially dangerous Covid-19 substances vaccines

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/may-the-lord-god-bless-you-and-keep-you/

“Everywhere in your blog articles and comments you call potentially dangerous Covid-19 substances vaccines… It is the safer course not to call potentially dangerous substances what they are not. (He calls them biological weapons, which may well be true)… This has also led you to believe that “Covid-19 vaccines” are not a matter (question) of Revelation and the mark of the beast although I believe the exact opposite…” https://dabasvide.wordpress.com/2022/02/08/zvera-zime/.

This objection has nothing to do with infallible teaching or the invalidity of LibTrad pseudo-clergy. First, this is a matter of opinion, not Catholic belief. I can diverge in my opinion on this if I choose, and I have good reasons for doing so. Secondly, not everything available in the alternative media is necessarily true; much is speculation which has resulted in media hysteria. Thirdly, the Church teaches we are not to assign a literal interpretation to the Book of Apocalypse since it is to be interpreted spiritually or symbolically. We are talking here about what the CHURCH says, not what I say. The primary interpretation — that the mark is a false sort of Baptism — must remain spiritual. And if the Church teaches it, and She does, then we cannot deny that. This is what I actually said: “There is nothing that says that the successors of Antichrist might not also promote some identification sign that must be received on the hand or forehead that would mark citizens in a way that could determine whether they buy or sell, but this is only a material extenuation of the spiritual reality.” The same goes for “vaccines.”

Conclusion

A little history and background information needs to be considered here. Robbins is a former member of the Novus Ordo sect, the Recognize and Resist group and the Sedevacantist sect operating St. Gertrude the Great in Ohio. The argument with Robbins began with a telephone conversation the summer of 2022 where I told him I believed I could prove LibTrad pseudo-clergy are invalid. He objected, saying I could never overcome the epikeia principle (when this is denounced unanimously by theologians as a principle that cannot be used in this situation). I sent him a rough draft of my work, but obviously he never accepted what I wrote.

He continued to make email statements such as: “I am asking for some kind of source to back up the claim that the idea that jurisdiction is unmediated by the Roman Pontiff is Gallicanism, and that Gallicanism (so defined) is heresy.” Really? And this from a self-professed (almost) minor in theology? Gallicanism was condemned as an error prior to the Vatican Council. As I have stated repeatedly, it was considered a heresy once the definition of the primacy was issued, and this from Henry Cardinal Manning and the Catholic Encyclopedia. And he cannot research these things for himself?!

When I refused to admit I had “erred” in calling immediate jurisdiction a Protestant heresy, he wrote: “Your claim that immediate jurisdiction is a Protestant heresy has not been proven. Yet that claim sits on my website garnering sneers and snickers…” So he is concerned not about the truth here, but about human respect. He admits the pope now possesses immediate jurisdiction over bishops, (but still holds it as only a probable opinion) writing, based on Ott and his own perceptions: “What you suggest, that it is heresy, is (a) not proven, and (b) absurd if coupled with the historical fact that it [the idea that bishops possessed immediate jurisdiction] was never condemned by the Church. It is not my fancy to go and argue every little point of theology, asking innumerable questions that do not get anyone closer to holiness, but rather inflame egos and puff up chests.” So if he doesn’t care to “argue every little point of theology,” what was all the ruckus about my classification of immediate jurisdiction as a Protestant heresy?! This is sheer hypocrisy.

Robbins clearly did not understand that once a matter IS decided by the pope, and that matter is related to a matter pertaining to divine revelation (how Christ transmitted jurisdiction), then yes, it becomes a heresy to say it is only a probable opinion! The matter of immediate jurisdiction from Christ to the pope, then the Apostles, was a common opinion even before Pope Pius XII made his decision, and I have documented this. That it was a dangerous one given the fact that Protestants and previous heretics claimed it also has been demonstrated, which is most likely why Pius XII decided as he did. That Robbins calls it “a little point of theology” given the fact that LibTrad pseudo-clergy (Cekada, CMRI) use it to justify their revolting simulation of the Sacraments and seduction of “Catholics” is the true absurdity here and amounts to the error of the minimalism Pope Pius XII condemned in Humani generis. As proven above, it is indeed a heresy now to deny that the pope possesses immediate jurisdiction.

He obviously hopes to so cloud the issues that readers such as Rihard are unable to sift the flyspeck from the proverbial pepper, as the reader notes above in our opening paragraphs. It appears he had the intention of alienating readers of this site to claim them for his own. And when this failed, and he could not generate the readership or revenue he had hoped for, he archived his site. His obvious trigger point — which reveals his true identity — is the invalidity of Trad pseudo-clergy. And he denies this fact despite the teachings of the popes, councils, canonists, theologians and St. Thomas Aquinas, dismissing Pope Pius XII’s infallible Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis as only “ecclesiastical” law.

Robbins can spew his hate-filled invective and self-serving verbiage all he wants, but he cannot change the fact that Traditionalist orders are invalid. He may try to pass himself off as a pray-at-home Catholic, but readers must not be fooled. These proofs of invalidity are what he, the recusants and other LibTrads fear the most, because it entirely unravels the premises on which Traditionalists founded their multi-fractured movement. THAT is what this persistent noise and these specious accusations are REALLY all about.

According to St. Robert Bellarmine, persecution is the fifth mark of the Church. Those praying at home have been shamefully betrayed in many ways by those pretending to be one of their own. I count myself honored and privileged to experience in some small way the same type of betrayal Our Lord Himself endured, praying only: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Or do they???

In reparation for disobeying St. Peter and his successors

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 19, 2025 | New Blog

+Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome+

For years we have advised the use of the prayers HERE to help all obtain that unity in faith so sorely lacking today, but sadly it is impossible to obtain in its fullness without the presence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. Because the remaining means to canonically elect a true pope no longer exist — that is, validly consecrated bishops — the only unity possible is that for which we have advocated these many years: strict adherence to the teachings of the Continual Magisterium. And so it seems fitting that, St. Peter’s Chair at Rome having been vacant now for 66 years, we address the particulars of that vacancy, especially because there still seems to be much confusion and misunderstanding regarding what has been presented on this site and the current state of affairs in the Church. First it is helpful to remind all those reading this of their obedience to the Roman Pontiff in ALL things as expressed below by Abp. Amleto Cicognani:

“…All Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decisions of the Roman Pontiff condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church and the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories opposed to Catholic faith and morals, all pertain to Catholic doctrine…. All the above pronouncements, although they do not strictly pertain to the divine law, follow, however, as deductions or declarations therefrom, and they concern the doctrine of the Church, and not its discipline properly so-called…” (Canon Law, 1935; Canon 1; pgs. 453-54).

Among these pronouncements would be Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). Although it is a complete revision of Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, it agrees with it in almost all its essential points. VAS forbids any episcopal consecrations during an interregnum as a usurpation of papal jurisdiction and nullifies any attempts at such consecrations, rendering them invalid. The same is true of anyone erecting seminaries and attempting ordinations, for this is also a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. Even bishops created during the reign of Pope Pius XII, if they participated in the Novus Ordo, accepted the usurper popes and/or signed Vatican 2 documents cannot validly ordain or consecrate without the lifting of infamy of law attached to Can. 2314 §1 regarding communicatio in sacris.  Since none of the bishops or other prelates among those “electing” and accepting John 23 and Paul 6 called for a new election based on the invalid election of these usurpers, there is no one left to validly elect a true pope.

Who usually elects in the absence of the cardinals?

The protocols to be followed in such a situation are hereby explained by Thomas Cardinal Cajetan, (1469-1534) as quoted by Reverend Charles Journet, (The Church of the Word Incarnate): Journet asks: “In whom does the power to elect the Pope reside?” Cajetan answers: “The Pope can settle who the electors shall be, and change and limit in this way the mode of election.” Journet, in summarizing Cajetan’s arguments writes: “In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan notes (Apologia, Chap. xiii, No. 745), not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default in the lower), but in the wide sense, signifying all trans­mission, even to an inferior. (p. 480.)

“Cajetan affirms through Journet’s reasoned explanation: “…When the provisions of canon law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy, the right will belong to the Church universal, (as with the Council of Constance), of which the Pope is to be bishop…. During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However … if the Pope has provided nothing against it, or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true cardinals are, or who the true Pope is…), the power ‘of applying the papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God” (Cajetan: De Comnarata, Cap. xiii, No. 202¬204; also, Apologia, Cap. xiii, No. 736.)

John of St. Thomas says: “…The concrete mode in which the election is to be carried out … has been nowhere indicated in Scripture; it is mere ecclesiastical law which will determine which persons in the Church can validly proceed to election.” It should also be noted that both Card. Cajetan and John of St. Thomas wrote prior to the ruling by Popes Pius X and Pius XII, and as Card. Cajetan states, “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election” (De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). And this is borne out by Popes Pius X and Pius XII.

While the above may have applied formerly, when all elected an unworthy candidate to the papacy in the person of Angelo Roncalli (John 23) they were automatically disqualified from electing another pope under Can. 2391 §1. This means that any remaining bishops would need to gather and study the situation, determining how to proceed according to VAS. But no bishops stepped forward to do this; none renounced Roncalli. All became willing members of the Novus Ordo church. And so all not only forfeited the right to elect themselves, but became apostates.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis no ecclesiastical law

Certainly with the election laws of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, the Church has sufficiently expressed her something against it, since these laws clearly state that nothing can be done during an interregnum, even by the cardinals. At one time perhaps, before its codification by Pope St. Pius X, papal election law was considered ecclesiastical law, but it is now considered special law. Under Title IV — of Ecclesiastical Offices, (which provides laws for other types of elections), according to Can. 160, papal elections are governed exclusively by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This removes it from the realm of ecclesiastical law strictly speaking. The first three paragraphs of this constitution speak solely of the inalienable rights and prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Church — especially during an interregnum — and thus these paragraphs treat of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the duties, especially of the cardinals, to defend the Church’s rights during the vacancy of the Holy See, when She is most vulnerable to attack.

Pius XII levies penalties for violating papal law and canon law during an interregnum, penalties which can be lifted only by a future pontiff, and these penalties are taken from ancient laws dating back to the Middle Ages. He then seals it in the third paragraph by stating that anything done which violates the penalties he has laid down for usurping papal jurisdiction, violating the rights of the Church, or disobeying or ignoring papal or canon law is null, void and invalid, and this by his “Supreme Authority.” So while the rest of the constitution is mainly about the manner of election by Cardinals, there are certain parts of it that obviously are intended to preserve the Church’s unchangeable nature and integrity and preserve the pope’s supremacy of jurisdiction during an interregnum, both of which are matters of Divine Revelation. So the three paragraphs introducing Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, at least, are infallible.

Fatal errors of the “illicit only” crowd

At one time, I believed the laity could elect a pope, using a wide interpretation of the “devolution principle” and the term “universal Church.” Further study and hard experience proved this was not possible, given the dogmatic definitions by the Council of Trent, VAS and other considerations. Based in part on the idea that VAS was only “an ecclesiastical law” and not binding on the faithful, I also believed Traditional clergy were only questionably valid. But again, the realization that VAS was infallible in its first three paragraphs, at least; also learning that the vindicative penalty incurred by infamy of law invalidated attempts by LibTrad pseudo-clergy to perform ecclesiastical acts proved this belief to be false. Some, however, never questioned the validity of these pseudo-clerics and began praying at home because they believed these men were only illicit (and to be avoided according to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas).

Those holding this belief maintain they are not obligated to determine if these false clergy are valid or not, and some among them insist invalidity can never be proven. They base this on arguments advanced by Trad pseudo-clergy citing epikeia (a relaxation of the law based on reasonableness) as a sort of suppletory principle. It was for this reason I decided to further investigate this issue several years ago, resulting in the invalidity and epikeia proofs presented HERE and HERE. All these proofs are taken directly from infallible Church teaching and Canon Law, and indisputably prove that the principle of epikeia could never be used by LibTrads to circumvent the Divine Law of juridical mission.  It is the manner in which the continuation of this mission will proceed that is addressed in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which forbids the cardinal priests and bishops to usurp papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. And it is clear from binding papal documents throughout the centuries that the pope alone has the right to approve bishops prior to their consecration, which cannot proceed without his approval.

Those claiming Traditional clergy possess illicit orders only, then, are upholding validity. They deny that the pope alone has supreme jurisdiction to rule otherwise — the right and power to approve bishops and declare those consecrated without this approval during an interregnum null, void and invalid. They are the fence straddlers Christ has said He will vomit from His mouth. They claim that observing the safer course by not attending Mass and Sacraments is enough, but they are confusing the moral precepts governing conscience formation with the necessary obedience to the dogmatic portion of VAS. They are basing their position on an opinion which LibTrad “experts” claim is probable — that VAS is an ecclesiastical law only and can be dismissed as no longer applying to the current “emergency” situation.

No probable opinion on validity possible

But they must ask themselves: What proofs have these experts ever presented that support this so-called opinion? Probable opinions can be formulated and considered as reliable only by five or six approved theologians writing before the death of Pope Pius XII, and LibTrad pseudo-clergy have never been approved or commissioned to teach by a canonically elected pope. Even if these probable opinions could be found, all theologians agree, as pointed out on this site many times, from approved works: Probable opinions can never be used to determine sacramental validity. (Revs. Prummer, McHugh and Callan, Abp. Cicognani, Davis, Slater, et al). It seems to matter to no one that Pope Pius XII uses his “Supreme Authority,” added specifically to his revision of Pope St. Pius X’s previous election law, to express his mind in this matter. Or that VAS is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and is therefore binding on all for belief, not just the Cardinals as LibTrads also sometimes claim.

If the illicit only crowd yet believe these men are valid, they should also consider what Rev. Gury and others have to say in this matter. For it is not just abstaining from the liturgical functions of the LibTrad sects that remove one from the bane of communicatio in sacris  (cooperation with non-Catholics); it is also abandoning all their so-called doctrines. And primary among these doctrines is their pretended validity. So clearly those still holding these men to be valid, with absolutely no proof of their validity and a mountain of proof offered in the links above to disprove it, are yet guilty of communicatio in sacris. They may pray at home and eschew all else they know to be false that was taught by the LibTrad sects. But if they cling to this one, monumental error, they are guilty of denying a truth infallibly taught by the Church as closely connected to Divine Revelation.

And what is the penalty for holding such beliefs, even if taught only in the pope’s ordinary magisterium (dogma is not just contained only in ex cathedra pronouncements), in order to be classified as a dogma? The following is taken from a chart On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J., Rome, 1951 — a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations.

This is not a matter of conscience formation, but of membership in the Catholic Church. In VAS, Pope Pius XII infallibly indicates that any usurpation of those things reserved exclusively to the Pope is forbidden during an interregnum, (and we are 66 years into this interregnum). Approval of bishops prior to their consecration is exclusively reserved to the pope (Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis, Ad sinarum gentum). Ergo, consecration without papal approval is a usurpation of the pope’s supreme jurisdiction, divinely instituted by Christ, and is therefore null, void and invalid. So any objections about the anathemas and warnings posted on this site against LibTrad sects and especially the leaders of these sects is well justified — these leaders are not clerics, and they do not represent the Catholic remnant any more than their Novus Ordo counterparts because they long ago ceased to be members of the Church! They are leading souls astray, and lest we be condemned ourselves, we are obligated to expose them. 

Conclusion

True bishops existing in 1958 were under a grave obligation to challenge Roncalli’s election as invalid, a proven fact according to the laws and teachings of the Church. Had they then declared the papal See vacant, followed the election part of VAS as far as possible and elected a true pope, we would not be writing this today. But through fear, cowardice, or crass and supine ignorance they abandoned the Church to join a non-Catholic sect. Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis held all the answers and solutions to the problems which arose but they chose to defy these infallible teachings, and none of the faithful rose up to demand they do their bounden duty. This was and is the Great Apostasy. Rev. J. Wilhelm writes in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia under Councils: “…When there was no Pope, or the rightful Pope was indistinguishable from antipopes… In such abnormal times the safety of the Church becomes the supreme law and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.”

The safety of the Church is paramount in such times, and only the Roman Pontiff can guarantee that safety, not the Mass and Sacraments. Without the safety only Christ’s Vicar can offer, we fell prey to the ministrations of men dressed as clerics, promoting the worship of bread idols and misleading souls; hearing confessions with no ability to absolve and no obligation to observe the Seal of the Confessional; pretending to perpetuate themselves with ancient rites devoid of any transmission of power. In short, a cruel mockery of all that was ever holy in the Church, particularly the papacy. We offer this article as a small act of reparation to St. Peter and his successors, who along with Our Lord suffered and died for the faith. Those praying the Unity Octave should understand well what they pray for, for today the only unity we can hope to obtain is by faithful obedience to all papal pronouncements throughout the ages:

That they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.

V. I say unto thee that thou art Peter

R. And upon this rock I will build My Church. 

Let us pray: O Lord Jesus Christ, Who said unto thine Apostles, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, regard not our sins but the faith of Thy Church and grant unto Her that peace and unity WHICH ARE AGREEABLE TO THY WILL. Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen.

(300 days indulgence)

A book for those foundering in the sea of unbelief

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 6, 2025 | New Blog

+Feast of the Epiphany+

A book review

So many today long for a simple, more comprehensive explanation of what has happened to the Church. Especially needed is one aimed at younger people estranged from religion entirely but who still believe, or those identifying as Christians who sense the emptiness of their sects’ teachings and are seeking a more meaningful relationship with God. And last of all but not least, those poor lost souls out there today surveying the wreckage that was once established religion and concluding that Christianity is nothing more than a fairy tale.

The book previewed below was written for all of them. The author is a Catholic mother and grandmother living in Australia who has worked through her own trials to finally arrive at the truth. It has led her to the belief that staying at home to keep the faith is the only way to save our souls. Her book lays the basic foundation for Catholic belief, then slowly leads the reader to a gradual understanding of what we have suffered since the death of Pope Pius XII, in the Church and in the world. Please share the link at the end of this blog with anyone you know who may benefit from it.

THE DREAM

It is now many years since the experience, but I have not forgotten it!  When I was a child, I cannot remember the exact age, somewhere between eight and twelve, I had a recurring dream every night for at least two months.  As soon as I closed my eyes after hopping into bed, I would see mist, thick mist starting to roll in towards me, like waves rolling in. It was grey to start with and not so threatening. As the mist ebbed out and came back at me, it grew thicker and darker. Through the dark thickness I could see a Light shining in the shape of a bright white disc, at the edge of the rolling waves.  The dream used to frighten me, so much so, that I would wake up screaming most nights.  My mother would come in often to try and comfort me and tell me it was just a dream.

Night after night, the same dream started soon after I closed my eyes. The ebbing would cause the darkness to grow in height, strength and thickness and it would roll in at me growing in greater force each time. I was certain I was going to drown in the darkness.  Gradually though, as soon as the nightmare started, my focus would move away from the black monstrous darkness and onto the brightness of the Light shining at the edge of the waves.  As the days and nights passed, I grew quite used to the dream because I began to realise that no matter how ferocious the thickening darkness became, it could never overcome me or snuff out that Light.  The Light was something I clung to, something to feel safe with, to trust.  Then one night the dream just stopped altogether.

CHAPTER ONE: AN INTRODUCTION

Dearest Reader, welcome! For you I have one desire: that what will unfold before you in these pages will help you personally to cast off all darkness. I desire to help you clear away conflicting thoughts, confusion, tension, stress, anxiety, guilt, nervousness, or anything else unbalancing you; and give you the power to replace the Darkness with the Light. For far too long we have been fed dangerous portions of brainwashing lies, so much so, that we have lost the capability to think for ourselves and act precisely.

More importantly, we have also been robbed of nourishment both spiritually and physically. You will come to know the culprits who have robbed us as you venture through. Having this information, hopefully dear Reader, will help you to broaden your mind and allow you to find remedies for your troubles.

It is true. I do not actually know you personally, but I can understand why you would choose a book with this title. Most of us living in this current time in history are troubled souls because confusion and lies have been deliberately forced upon us. Whether young, old, or somewhere in between, most of us feel confusion and have emotional disturbances within ourselves. Take courage, dear Reader, for Light and Understanding are about to open for you.

If you have become accustomed, wittingly or unwittingly, to the brainwashing lies being fed daily to us from all walks of life then it may take you a little longer to clear the darkness. These techniques used upon us may have without you realizing it coerced you into accepting changes in your personal, social, spiritual, public, political, critical and creative thinking, but you will learn to decipher how and why these changes happened. The darkness will lift. You will know when this lifting starts to happen because you will begin to have your own thoughts, ideas, desires, and freedoms again.

For the younger ones, you will discover these delights and ancient capabilities for the first time. At this comment you might feel a little insulted, especially if you believe you already have full control of your own thoughts. Of course, you have the capability to control your own mind, but you will learn how outside pressures can sway our thoughts and confuse us. It is a technique used to make us vulnerable, doubtful, or even unbalanced.

Equilibrium is a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced. This generation, I believe, dear Reader, has lost its equilibrium and become imbalanced. Another way to explain this is that we have lost our compass, or we have a compass spinning out of control where new laws, rules, regulations, ideas, and opinions are tossed at us continuously. This happens at such a fast-pace we have no time to process or ponder let alone understand.

A compass points us in the right direction. The Light Compass points us in the right thought direction. Without either our Light Compass (or our equilibrium), we become vulnerable enough to accept anything, everything, or even despondently accept nothing.

Note here I use the word “vulnerable.” You may or may not be aware but our generation, dear troubled soul, has deliberately been made vulnerable. We are under attack constantly; our Light Compass has been deliberately tampered with and transformed into something else, and the true Light Compass is now in eclipse! Our equilibrium is imbalanced. The constant brainwashing being forced on us both physically and emotionally harms us.

If you are one of the older ones amongst us, dear Reader, you might remember a time when things were much simpler, more fulfilling, and rewarding—a time when people in general were happier. You might still be able to differentiate between truth and lies; goodness and badness; happiness and sadness; joyfulness and misery; right and wrong. You would have lived by a compass or a moral standard like the Ten Commandments. Maybe a loving family was your guide and compass. You would have known your neighbors, your friends, relatives, your children’s teachers, and they would have all seemed to be on the same page as you. You would have known your politicians and world leaders, and you would have recognized their lies and truths. Your equilibrium would have been balanced and this would have given you comfort and security.

Have you felt this balance slipping away from you? Do you feel the compass spinning? Do you sometimes feel you do not understand the changes in people close to you, or feel useless and confused in this modern world?

Currently most of us do not speak out about things we know in our heart are wrong, fearing even to raise these wrongs with our own acquaintances for the horror of being laughed at, judged, belittled, or ostracized. People are being blocked on social media, or even punished by law, for speaking out and using free speech. This might add to our fear.

Dear younger Reader, if you are a soul raised in a terrific family environment, you are one of the fortunate ones. Step outside the family and into the world and you too might possibly feel the confusion and stress. If you are a hurt soul, that has come from a broken family torn between two uncompromising parents, it must be difficult for you. Or perhaps you are under an abusive family; or sadly, you have no family and have been passed around from foster family to foster family. In whatever horrible situation you find yourself in, dear soul, you would possibly be feeling miserably unwanted and unloved. I want you to know there is help at hand. There is Light that shines so brightly it clears all your Darkness.

You might be one of thousands of souls caught up in a false reality due to taking substances, alcoholism, or trapped in a dark abusive situation. If you are of school age, or a university student, dear soul, you may feel you do not even know yourself. This confusion comes from lies being taught to you. Have courage young, troubled soul, as it is very possible, with a little determination, you will soon understand that a better life is ahead of you—a clearer, brighter knowledge, about who you really are, and what you really are capable of achieving. Read with an open mind, know that you are truly loved by Love itself. Go forth on this journey with confidence following the Light and dismissing the Darkness, all of which will be explained to you as we wander on through this adventure.

First though, if you are doubting any change in you is possible, I do understand; maybe you feel you are in a permanent dark hole. Yes, it is harder for those who have not been shown or raised by the Light Compass, or even been taught there is such a thing. Your equilibrium has probably never been balanced.

A thing known as common-sense has also been killed off. There was a time not so long ago, dear young one, that things that made sense, things that we knew were correct, were automatically understood by most of us. Unfortunately, common-sense is not so common anymore. In fact, the merging of truth and lies, goodness and badness, right and wrong, happiness and sadness, joyfulness and misery has been so deliberately mingled together you probably see life in a grey tinge. So dark a grey, that you live in a cloudy fog. You probably try with all you might to grab some happiness in anything that comes your way. Afterwards though, you are left feeling worse than before. Take courage, young one, for being young you can learn faster, see more clearly, and hear better. You will be able to find the Light Compass and balance your own equilibrium sooner. Therefore, you will be able to think clearly for yourself for the first time. Have confidence because Light and Understanding will also open to you.

For all Readers, of all ages, no matter what the darkness is that surrounds you now, it is obvious you are searching for a way out. I know this because you are reading this book in the hope of finding help. As mentioned already, I do not know you personally, but this is not important. What is important is that you get to know yourself better. Therefore, you will understand that what you yourself is searching for is what every human being desires: happiness! True happiness only comes through true freedom, which is the Light!

You will come to understand that happiness is not only found in the good times, the healthy times, the rewarding and successful times. It is very possible and often necessary to find happiness also in sorrow and suffering.

The trouble disturbing your soul presently, dear Reader, is probably coming from two sources: from outside of yourself, and from within yourself. From outside of yourself, there are two forces always working within the world around you, not necessarily in any equality or strength. From within yourself, there are also the same two forces working within you, but at lesser and differing degrees. One force is the Light, which is love; the other opposing force is the Darkness, which is hate. These two forces not only affect the spiritual and physical world which we live in, but also, they affect everyone’s life on earth. The Light governs with benevolent order, while the Darkness attacks with utter chaos. (End of book preview)

To read Chapter II and order the book, go to https://assets.booklocker.com/pdfs/13669s.pdf